1 A Glance Back – Myths and Facts about CBRN Incidents · incidents with chemicals by historical...

3

1A Glance Back – Myths and Facts about CBRN IncidentsAndre Richardt and Frank Sabath

In our human history we can find numerous examples of the application ofchemical and biological agents used or proposed as weapons during the course ofa campaign or battle. In the twentieth century we saw the rise of a new age in battlefield tactics and the abuse of detailed scientific knowledge for the employmentof chemicals as warfare agents (CWAs). Another step that crossed a border wasthe use of nuclear bombs against Nagasaki and Hiroshima in 1945. Althoughthere have been many attempts to ban chemical, biological, radiological, andnuclear warfare agents (CBRN agents), their devastating potential makes them stillattractive for regular armies as well as for terrorists. Therefore, it is likely that theemergence of CBRN terrorism is going to be a significant threat in the twenty-firstcentury. However, we need to understand our history if we want to find appropriateanswers for current and future threats. For this reason, in this chapter we providea short history of CBRN, from the beginning of the use of CBRN agents up to theemergence of CBRN terrorism and the attempt to ban the use of this threat bynegotiation and treaties.

1.1Introduction

Why do we fear the use of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons? What arethe reasons behind the obvious? To answer these questions we have to understandthat data and facts are only one part of the story. To understand and to be ableto lift the veil of myths about CBRN incidents we need a lot more. Therefore, thehistory section of this part attempts to lay the basis for a deeper understanding ofsubsequent chapters.

CBRN Protection: Managing the Threat of Chemical, Biological, Radioactive and Nuclear Weapons,First Edition. Edited by A. Richardt, B. Hulseweh, B. Niemeyer, and F. Sabath.© 2013 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA. Published 2013 by Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA.

4 1 A Glance Back – Myths and Facts about CBRN Incidents

1.2History of Chemical Warfare

We can find many examples (Figure 1.1) of how the toxic principle of chemicalsubstances has been used to ambush the enemy, even if the exact mechanism wasunknown.

• Chemical warfare weapon (CWA): ‘‘. . . The term chemical weapon is appliedto any toxic chemical or its precursor that can cause death, injury, temporaryincapacitation, or sensory irritation through its chemical action . . .’’(http://www.opcw.org/about-chemical-weapons/what-is-a-chemical-weapon/,accessed 26 January 2011)

• Chemical warfare (CW) agent: ‘‘. . . The toxic component of a chemicalweapon is called its ‘‘chemical agent.’’ Based on their mode of action (i.e., theroute of penetration and their effect on the human body), chemical agentsare commonly divided into several categories: choking, blister, blood, nerve,and riot control agents.’’ (http://www.opcw.org/about-chemical-weapons/types-of-chemical-agent/, accessed 26 January 2011).

Arsenical smokesChina 1000 BC

Noxious smoke andflame Peloponnesianwar 430–420 BC

DianisidinechlorosulfateGermany27 October 1914

WW I

Chemical shells, teargas grenades MustardJapanese Invasion ofChina, 1937

Chemical agentsIraq againstKurds1980s

Nerve agentsAum Shinrikyo1985, 87

Chlorine attacksby German andAllied troopstroops WW I

MustardGerman troops12 July 1917

MustardItalian−Ethiopianwar 1935

Mustard andnerve agentsYemen war1963–67

Mustard andnerve agentsIraq− Iran war1980s

Chlorine attacksIraq 2007

Powder of sulfide ofarsenic and verdigrisLeonardo da Vinci 1500AC

Thirty yearswar1618−1648 AC

1000 800 600 400 200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

BC AC

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

Noxious smoke andflame Dura-Europos256 BC

Figure 1.1 Time line of some significant examples of the application of toxic substances aschemical agents.

1.2 History of Chemical Warfare 5

The deployment of toxic smokes and poisoned fire for advantage in skirmishesand on the battlefield was well known by our ancestors [1, 2]. In addition, we candate some significant changes, where the next level was reached in the discoveryand use of toxic chemicals (see Figure 1.4 below).

1.2.1Chemical Warfare Agents in Ancient Times

We can date the employment of chemicals as chemical warfare agents (CWAs) fromat least 1000 BC when the Chinese used arsenical smokes [1]. By the applicationof noxious smoke and flame the allies of Sparta took an Athenian-held fort in thePeloponnesian War between 420 and 430 BC. Stink bombs of poisonous smokeand shrapnel were designed by the Chinese, along with a chemical mortar thatfired cast-iron stink shells. Other conflicts during succeeding centuries saw theuse of smoke and flame. However, it is difficult to confirm historical reports aboutincidents with chemicals by historical facts. One example of the confirmed use oftoxic smoke is the siege of the city Dura-Europos by the army from the SasanianPersian Empire around AD 256, where poisoned smoke was introduced to breakthe line of Roman defenders [3]. The full range of ancient siege techniques to breakinto the city, including mining operations to breach the walls, has been discoveredby historians [3]. Roman defenders responded with ‘‘counter-mines’’ to thwart theattackers. In one of these narrow, low galleries a pile of bodies, representing about20 Roman soldiers still with their arms, was found (Figure 1.2). Findings fromthe Roman tunnel revealed that the Persians used bitumen and sulfur crystals tostart it burning. This confirmed application of poison gas in an ancient siege is anexample of the inventiveness of our ancestors.

Toxic smoke projectiles were designed and used during the Thirty Years War(1618–1648). Leonardo da Vinci proposed a powder of arsenic sulfide and verdigrisin the fifteenth century. Venice employed unspecified poisons in hollow explosivemortar shells during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The Venetians also sentcontaminated chests to their enemy to envenom wells, crops, and animals. Duringthe Crimean War (1853–1856), the use of cyanide-filled shells was proposed tobreak the siege of Sevastopol. However, all these incidents happened withoutknowing the exact mechanism of poisoning.

1.2.2Birth of Modern Chemical Warfare Agents and Their Use in World War I

We can date the birth of modern chemical warfare agents (CWAs) to the early twen-tieth century. Progress in modern inorganic chemistry during the late eighteenthand early nineteenth centuries and the flowering of organic chemistry worldwideduring the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries generated renewed interestin chemicals as military weapons. The chemical agents first used in combat duringWorld War I were eighteenth- and nineteenth-century discoveries (Table 1.1).


Approx.zone ofintenseburning

App

rox.

ext

ent o

f zon

e of

col

laps

e

Tunnel entranceunexcavated

City wall & towers

Persian mine

Romancounter-mine

0 10m

(a) (b)

Figure 1.2 Siege of Dura-Europos by anarmy from the Sasanian Persian Empire(around AD 256 [3]): (a) The Sasanian Per-sian mine designed to collapse Dura’s citywall and adjacent tower. The Roman coun-termine intended to stop them and theprobable location of the inferred Persiansmoke-generator thought to have filled the

Roman gallery with deadly fumes. (b) Acomposite plan of the Roman countermine,showing the stock of Roman bodies near itsentrance. The area of intense burning marksthe gallery’s destruction by the Persians andthe skeleton of one of the attackers. Credit:images copyright of Simon James.

Table 1.1 Important eighteenth- and nineteenth-century discoveries of toxic chemicals.

Year Name Discovery

1774 Carl Scheele, a Swedish chemist Discovery of chlorine in 1774. He alsodetermined the properties andcomposition of hydrogen cyanide in 1782

1802 Comte Claude Louis Berthollet,a French chemist

Synthesis of cyanogen chloride

1812 Sir Humphry Davy, a Britishchemist

Synthesis of phosgene

1822 Victor Meyer, a Germanchemist

Dichloroethyl sulfide (mustard agent) wassynthesized in 1822, again in 1854, andfinally fully identified in 1886

1848 John Stenhouse, a Scottishchemist

Synthesis of chloropicrin


In 1887, the use of tear agents (lacrimators) for military purposes was consideredin Germany. In addition, a rudimentary chemical warfare program was startedby the French with the development of a tear gas grenade containing ethylbromoacetate. Furthermore, there were some discussions in France about the fillingof artillery shells with chloropicrin. The French Gendarmerie had successfullyemployed riot-control agents for civilian crowd control. These agents were alsoused in small quantities in minor skirmishes against the Germans, but were largelyinefficient. In summary, these riot-control agents were the first chemicals appliedon a modern battlefield, and the research for more effective agents continuedthroughout the war.

In the early stages of World War I, the British examined their own chemicaltechnology for battlefield use. Their first investigations also covered tear agents,but later they put their effort towards more toxic chemicals. Nevertheless, the firstlarge-scale employment of chemicals during World War I was initiated by heavilyindustrialized Germany. Three thousand 105-mm shells filled with dianisidinechlorosulfate, a lung irritant, were fired by the Germans at British troops nearNeuve-Chapelle on the 27 October 1914, but with no visible effect [4]. Nonetheless,the British were the victims of the first large-scale chemical projectile attack. TheGermans continued firing modified chemical shells with equally unsuccessfulresults. This lack of success, and the shortage of artillery shells, led to the conceptof creating a toxic gas cloud directly from its storage cylinder. This concept wasinvented by Fritz Haber in Berlin in 1914.

The first great attack with CWAs in modern warfare: Ypres in Belgium.Chlorine attack by German troops in April 1915 [5].

German units placed a total of between 2000 and 6000 cylinders opposite theAllied troops defending the city of Ypres in Belgium. The cylinders containeda total of around 160 tons of chlorine. Once the cylinders were in place, andbecause of the critical importance of the wind, the Germans waited for thewinds to shift to a westerly direction toward the trenches of the Allied troops.During the afternoon of the 22 April 1915 the chlorine gas was released withdevastating effects. This attack caused between 800 (realistic) and 5000 (mainlypropaganda) deaths.

After the first great attack with chemical warfare agents (CWAs) by Germantroops near Ypres [5], the Allied troops quickly restored a new front line and ittook only a short period of time for them to be able to use chlorine themselves.In September 1915, they launched their own chlorine attack against the Germansat Loos. The expansion of the armamentarium with chloropicrin and phosgenewas just the beginning of a deadly competition between both sides [6]. We sawthe invention and the development of more protective masks, more dangerouschemicals, and improved delivery systems.


Table 1.2 Estimated chemical casualties in World War I.

Country Nonfatal chemical casualties Chemical fatalities

Russia 420 000 56 000Germany 191 000 9000France 182 000 8000British Empire 180 000 8100United States 71 000 1500

A further step in a devastating chemical war was the use of a new kind ofchemical agent. On the 12 July 1917, again near Ypres in Belgium, sulfur mustardwas spread by the Germans in an artillery attack. Compared to the first agents,mustard was a more persistent vesicant on the ground, and this caused newproblems. Not only was the air poisoned, but the ground and equipment was alsocontaminated. This new agent was effective in low doses and affected the lungs,the eyes, and also the skin. Although fewer than 5% of mustard exposed soldiersdied, mustard injuries could easily overwhelm the medical system. Therefore, theneed for protective equipment for soldiers and horses that were heavy and bulky atthat time led to more difficult and dangerous fighting. In summary, World War Iwas the dawn of a new military age with devastating effects, with Russia bearingthe heaviest burden of chemical casualties (Table 1.2).

1.2.3Chemical Warfare Agents between the Two World Wars

Throughout the 1920s there was evidence that the military use of chemical agentscontinued after the end of World War I. Germany worked with Russia, whichhad suffered nearly half a million chemical casualties during World War I, toimprove their chemical agent offensive and defensive programs from the late1920s to the mid-1930s. During the Russian Civil War and Allied interventionin the early 1920s both sides had chemical weapons, and there were reports ofisolated chemical attacks. Later accounts accused the British, French, and Spanishtroops of using chemical warfare at various times and places during the 1920s. Forexample, it is rumored that Great Britain employed chemicals against the Russiansand mustard against the Afghans north of the Khyber Pass. Spain has beenaccused of having deployed mustard shells and bombs against the Riff tribes ofMorocco [7].

1.2.3.1 The Italian–Ethiopian WarDuring the Italian–Ethiopian War the first major employment of chemical weaponsafter World War I was reported. On 3 October 1935, Mussolini launched an invasionof Ethiopia from its neighbors Eritrea and Italian Somaliland. Italian troops droppedmustard bombs and sprayed it from airplane tanks. Mustard agent was selected


as a ‘‘dusty agent’’ to burn the unprotected feet of the Ethiopians with devastatingeffects. It was the first time special sprayers were prepared on board of aircraftsto vaporize a fine, deathly rain. This fearful tactic succeeded and by May 1936 theEthiopian army was completely routed and Italy controlled most of Ethiopia, until1941 when British and other allied troops re-conquered the country. However,some have concluded that the Italians were a clearly superior force and that the useof chemical agents in the war was nothing more than an experiment. Nonetheless,there were thousands of victims of Italian mustard gas [7].

1.2.3.2 Japanese Invasion of ChinaThe Japanese had an extensive chemical weapons program. They were producingagent and munitions in large numbers by the late 1930s. During the invasion ofChina in 1937 it was reported that Japanese forces began using chemical shells,tear gas grenades, and lachrymatory candles. In 1939, there was an escalation bythe Japanese that led to the application of mustard and lewisite with great effect.The Chinese troops retreated whenever they saw smoke, thinking it was a chemicalattack [8].

1.2.3.3 First Nerve AgentsSearching for more potent insecticides the German chemist Schrader of the IGFarben Company discovered an extremely toxic organophosphorus insecticide in1936. This new compound was reported to the Chemical Weapons Section ofthe German military prior to patenting, as required by German law of that time.The substance had devastating effects on the nervous system and was thereforeclassified for further research. The substance was named tabun and after WorldWar II it was designated GA, for ‘‘German’’ agent ‘‘A.’’ The research continued andin 1938 a similar agent, sarin (GB), was designated with toxicity five-times higherthan that of tabun.

1.2.4Chemical Warfare Agents in World War II

It is due to common sense that chemical warfare agents (CWAs) were not widelyused in World War II. However, pilot plants for production were built on both sides.Germany produced and weaponized approximately 78 000 of tons of CWAs. Thekey agent was mustard in terms of production. The Germans filled artillery shells,bombs, rockets, and spray tanks with the agent. Why these deadly agents were notused on the battlefield remains a mystery. Thus, the top-secret German nerve agentprogram remained a secret until its discovery by the Allies after the end of WorldWar II.

Furthermore, there are reports, that Japan produced about 8000 tons of chemicalagents during the war. The favored agents were mustard agent, a mustard–Lewisitemixture, phosgene, and hydrogen cyanide. They gained experience during theirattacks on China.


The greatest producer of chemical warfare agents (CWAs) during World War IIwas the United States of America. Ready for retaliation, if Germany had been usedchemical warfare agents (CWAs), the United States produced proximately 146 000tons of chemical agents between 1940 and 1945. With the possible exception ofJapan during attacks in China no nation though, employed chemical agents on thebattlefield during World War II. However, the positioning of chemical weaponsnear the front line in case of need resulted in one major disaster in 1943 [9]. In 1943the Germans bombed the American ship the John Harvey in Bari Harbor, Italy. Thiswas a ship loaded with 2000 100-pounds M47A1 mustard bombs. Over 600 militarycasualties and an unknown number of civilian victims resulted from the raid whenthey were poisoned by ingestion, skin exposure to mustard-contaminated water,and inhalation of mustard-laden smoke. The harbor clean-up took more than threeweeks.

1.2.5Chemical Warfare Agents during the Cold War

The end of World War II did not stop the development, stockpiling, or use ofchemical weapons. During the Yemen War of 1963 through 1967, Egypt in allprobability used mustard and nerve agents in support of South Yemen againstroyalist troops in North Yemen. Attacks occurred on the town of Gahar and onthe villages of Gabas, Hofal, Gadr, and Gadafa. Shortly after these attacks, theInternational Red Cross examined victims, soil samples, and bomb fragments,and officially declared that chemical weapons, identified as mustard agent andpossibly nerve agents, had been applied in Yemen [10]. Prior to this, no country hademployed nerve agents in combat. The combination of the use of nerve agents bythe Egyptians in early 1967 and the outbreak of the war between Egypt and Israelduring the Six-Day War in June finally attracted world’s attention to the events inYemen.

The USA, which used napalm, defoliants, and riot-control agents in Vietnam andLaos, finally ratified the Geneva Protocol in 1975, but with the stated reservation thatthe treaty did not apply either to defoliants or riot-control agents. During the late1970s and early 1980s, reports of the application of chemical weapons against theCambodian refugees and against the Hmong tribesmen of central Laos surfaced,and the Soviet Union was accused of using chemical agents in Afghanistan. Widelypublicized reports of Iraqi’s employment of chemical agents against Iran duringthe 1980s led to a United Nations investigation that confirmed the attack by thevesicant mustard and the nerve agent tabun. Later during the war, Iraq apparentlyalso began to apply the more volatile nerve agent sarin, and Iran may have usedchemical agents to a limited extent in an attempt to retaliate for Iraqi attacks. Afterthe conflict with Iran, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein employed chemical weapons to dealwith rebellious Iraqi Kurds who had been assisted by the Iranians. The Iraqis usedmustard, possibly combined with nerve gases, against the Kurdish town of Halabjain March 1988, killing thousands of people.


Halabja: After two days of conventional artillery attacks gas canisters weredropped on the town on 16 March 1988. The gas aggression began early in thisday’s evening after a series of napalm and rocket attacks, when a group of up to20 Iraqi MiG and Mirage aircraft began dropping chemical bombs. The townand surrounding district were further assaulted with conventional bombs andartillery fire. At least 5000 people died as an immediate result of the chemicalattack (Figure 1.3) and it is estimated that a further 7000 people were injuredor suffered long-term illness. The attack is believed to have included the nerveagents tabun, sarin, and VX, as well as mustard gas.

Figure 1.3 Dead people in Halabja. Image is public domain.

Other countries that have stockpiled chemical agents include countries of theformer Soviet Union, Libya (the Rapta chemical plant, part of which may still beoperational), and France. Over two dozen other nations may also have the capabilityto manufacture offensive chemical weapons. The development of chemical warfareprograms in these countries is difficult to verify because the substances used inthe production of chemical warfare agents (CWAs) are in many cases the samesubstances that are applied to produce pesticides and other legitimate civilianproducts.

1.2.6Chemical Warfare Agents Used in Terrorism

Although terrorism was not unknown in the world through the twentieth century,it was not really widespread until the 1980s. Then the issue began to acquire ahigher profile. Aside from some domestic terrorism from the left in the UnitedStates during the late 1960s and into the 1970s, most notably in the form of the‘‘Weather Underground’’ group, by the end of that decade the focus had turnedtoward the right, first in the form of the ‘‘Survivalists’’ movement and then therightist/white supremacist ‘‘militias’’ that followed them. In other countries similarorganizations, sometimes with a religious background, also presented a potentialdomestic terroristic threat. One well-known example is the Japanese religious cult,


Table 1.3 Chlorine attacks in Iraq.

Date Event

21 October 2006 A car bomb carrying 12 120 mm mortar shells and 2100-pound chlorine tanks detonated in Ramadi

28 January 2007 A suicide bomber drove a dump truck packed withexplosives and a 1-ton chlorine tank into an emergencyresponse unit compound in Ramadi

February 2007 Three attacks with chlorine took place in the cities of Ramadiand Baghdad

March 16 2007 Three separate suicide attacks in this month used chlorine inRamadi and Fallujah

March 28 2007 Suicide bombers detonated a pair of truck bombs, onecontaining chlorine

April 2007 Three attacks with chlorine where reported in Ramadi andBaghdad

15 and 20 May 2007 Chlorine was used in Abu Sayda and nearby Ramadi3 June 2007 A car bomb exploded outside a US military base in Diyala,

unleashing a noxious cloud of chlorine gas

Aum Shinrikyo. They released nerve agents (sarin) in Matsumoto, Japan, 1994 andin 1995 they used sarin in a crowded Tokyo subway. This is an example of how theemployment of chemical warfare agents (CWAs) by terrorists could be a significantthreat to the civilian population.

Another actual example is the use of chlorine in Iraq. Chlorine bombings in Iraqbegan as early as October 2006, when insurgents in the Al Anbar Province startedapplying chlorine gas in conjunction with conventional vehicle-borne explosivedevices (Table 1.3). The inaugural chlorine attacks in Iraq were described as poorlyexecuted, probably because much of the chemical agent was rendered nontoxicby the heat of the accompanying explosives. Subsequent, more refined, attacksresulted in hundreds of injuries, but have proven not to be a viable means ofinflicting massive loss of life. Their primary impact has therefore been to causewidespread panic, with large numbers of civilians suffering non life-threatening,but nonetheless highly traumatic, injuries.

1.2.7Conclusions and Outlook

Parallel to technological developments we have seen the more and more sophis-ticated use of toxic substances in warfare over the centuries. The understandingof the mechanism of action of chemicals as chemical warfare agents (CWAs) isclosely linked to the breakthrough in science and industrial manufacturing over thecenturies. From a historical point of view it is important to flag and to understandthe periodic leaps by which the use and knowledge of chemicals as chemicalwarfare agents (CWAs) reached a new phase (Figure 1.4). Therefore it is likely that

1.3 Introduction to Biological Warfare 13

Level of threat

First large scaledeployment of chemicalson a battlefield 1914

Use of toxicsubstances withoutknowing the exactchemical mechanism

Synthesis of the firstchemical agents

Optimization ofthe deploymentof chemical onthe battlefield

Development of new chemicals, easyproduction and stockpiling of CWAs by states

New manufacturingtechnologies lead to down-sized("home-made") productionpossibilities

Development of new toxicagents (nerve agents)1936

Emerging of chemicalterrorism(Aum Shinrikyo)1994

Beginning ofmoderninorganic andorganic chemistrylate 18th century

1700 1800 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940

Year

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Figure 1.4 Breakthroughs in natural science and industrial development led to importantleaps in the development and deployment of toxic substances in human history.

future breakthroughs in natural science and nanotechnology could lead to further

leaps in the development of toxic substances designed for chemical warfare.

1.3Introduction to Biological Warfare

The fear that the possible use of biological agents as weapons could lead to

devastating effects for our civilization, economy, and society is still anchored in our

minds. Therefore, if we want to estimate the potential of biological agents correctly

it is necessary that we understand our history. Natural epidemics of cholera and

plague are frightening enough. The notion that rogue states or terrorists could

harness these and other diseases as weapons of war is even more chilling. While

rare, the use of biological weapons dates back centuries. In this chapter confirmed

and unconfirmed examples of biological warfare and bioterrorism are explored,

from medieval times to today (Figure 1.5). We will learn more about the reasons

why we still have in our memory the devastating effects of illness and a war outside

the normal rules of engagement.

• Biological warfare agents: the use of disease-producing microorganisms,(bacteria, viruses) and toxic biological products, to cause death or injury tohumans, animals, or plants.


Victims of plague weredriven into enemy lands

1500 − 1200 BC

German army developed anthrax,glanders, cholera and a wheatfungus specifically for use as

biological weapons World War I

Japanese forces carriedout human experiments

on prisoners withbiological weapons

World War II

Contamination of restaurantsalad bars by followers of the

Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh withSalmonella 1984 Anthrax letters in the USA 2001

Ricin was found in US Senateoffice buildings 2004

Hellebore roots wereused to poison drinking

water of Kirrha600 BC

Catapult jars filled withsnakes were used by

Hannibal 184 BC

Plague victims werecatapulted over the walls ofthe besieged city of Caffa.

1346 AC

Battle of Tortona: Barbarossaused dead and decomposing

soldiers to poison wells 1200 AC

French and Indian Warblankets from smallpoxvictims were given tothe Native Americans

1800 AC

Accidental release ofanthrax in Svedlosk,

USR 1979

Release of anthrax from thetops of buildings in Tokyo bythe Aum Shinrikyo cult 1994

1250 1000 750 500 250 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800BC AC

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

Figure 1.5 Time line of some significant examples of the application of biological sub-stances as biological agents.

1.3.1Most Harmful Pandemics in History

In our collective human memory the different pandemics of our history are deeply

anchored. We can number several different pandemics with a high death toll

(Figure 1.6). Even if the death toll is not high, fear can overcome civilizations that

a disease will spread across their population.

• Pandemic: A pandemic is an epidemic (an outbreak of an infectious disease)that spreads across international and natural borders, or at least across alarge region. A pandemic can start when three conditions have been met: (i)emergence of a new or old disease with a low protection level in a population;(ii) the disease is infectious: agents infect humans, causing serious illness;and (iii) agents spread easily and sustainably among humans.

To get a clue of the heavy death toll of pandemics and epidemics we shed light

on plagues and influenzas [11]. The Peloponnesian War Pestilence wiped out over


Cholera Smallpox Mexican measles

Influenza

Syphilis

HIVPlagueTyphus

Tuberculosis

Pandemics and epidemicsin human history

Figure 1.6 Most dangerous pandemics and epidemics in history for human kind. Imagesare public domain.

30 000 citizens of Athens in 430 BC (roughly one- to two-thirds of the population).Later the Antonine Plague, nowadays thought to be smallpox, was brought to Romeby soldiers returning from Mesopotamia in 165 AD. It was reported that at its peakthe disease killed some 5000 people a day in Rome. Finally, 15 years later, a total of5 million people were dead. The Plague of Justinian (541–542 AD) was recorded asa deadly disease in the Byzantine Empire. At the cumulus of the infection 10 000people in Constantinople were killed every day. By the end of the outbreak, nearlyhalf of the inhabitants of the city were dead. After the Plague of Justinian, there weremany sporadic outbreaks of the plague, but none as severe as the ‘‘Black Death’’ ofthe fourteenth century. As the origin of the outbreak is unknown this pandemic tooka heavy toll on Europe. The fatality level was recorded as over one-fourth of the entireEuropean population. The last epidemic started in 1855 with the initial outbreak inYunnan Province, China. The disease spread from China to India, Africa, and theAmerican continent. All in all, this pandemic lasted about 100 years (it officiallyended in 1959) and claimed over 12 million people in India and China alone.

In human history different influenzas have came across the world [11]. In recenthistory the highest death toll can be charged to ‘‘Spanish Flu.’’ ‘‘Spanish Flu’’ startedin March 1918, in the last months of World War I, with an unusually virulent anddeadly flu virus. Just six months later the flu had become a worldwide pandemic inall continents, with the result that half of the world’s population (1 billion people)had contacted it. From what we know, it is perhaps the most lethal pandemic in the


recent history of humankind. Calculations differ between 20 and 100 million dead –more than the number of people killed in the World War I itself. Since then differentinfluenzas have plagued the world. The ‘‘Asian Flu Pandemic’’ (1957–1958) and‘‘Hong Kong Flu’’ (1968) caused a total of nearly 2 million deaths. The ‘‘SwineFlu Threat’’ (1976), ‘‘Russian Flu Threat’’ (1977), and ‘‘Avian Flu Threat’’ (1997)illustrated that the danger of a potential major pandemic cannot be denied. Theability of influenza viruses to change, become more transmissible among people,and be more difficult to treat is an ongoing concern. Therefore, for illustration, ifwe have in mind that possible pandemics could wipe out one-fourth of the Asian,European, or American population nowadays, it is more than understandable whywe fear the biological nightmare and want to be prepared.

1.3.2Biological Warfare Agents in Ancient Times BC

Ever since humans brought war upon each other more soldiers have been inca-pacitated by diseases than by the hand of their human enemies. This observationmight have led to the early deployment of poisonous substances during war. Theearliest documented incident of the intention to use biological weapons is recordedin Hittite texts of 1500−1200 BC, in which victims of plague were driven intoenemy lands. Although the Assyrians knew of ergot, a fungus of rye with effectssimilar to LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide), there is no evidence that they poisonedenemy wells with ergot, as has often been claimed. In 600 BC Solon of Athens puthellebore roots in the drinking water of Kirrha. About 200 BC, the Carthaginiansused mandrake root left in wine to sedate the enemy. To our current knowledge,poisons have been administered to enemy water supplies as early as the sixthcentury BC. Animal cadavers substituted for poisons during the Greek and Romaneras and Emperor Barbarossa applied human corpses to the same end, althoughit is likely that there was no intention of spreading disease but rather a simplespoiling of water supply. A more active approach was suggested by Hannibal, whoadvised the Bithynians to catapult jars filled with snakes toward enemy ships in184 BC. The panic created rather than poisonous bites likely decided the battle,revealing human psychology as a second important dimension during biologicalattacks. Catapulting infected human bodies and excrement constituted a furtherstep during the sieges of many towns, although it is not clear if these actionscontributed much to the spread of disease.

Can We Be Sure about Historical Reports of Biological Incidents?

There is the legend that during the siege of the Crimean city of Caffa (now:Feodosiya, Ukraine) by the Tartars in 1346 victims of the bubonic plague werecatapulted into the city and an outbreak of the Black Death were reported. Asthe conquered Genoese fled and the victors moved on both were spreading thedisease (Figure 1.7). Plague doctors were specifically hired by citizens to treat


nearly everyone – the rich and the poor (Figure 1.8). At the end of the BlackDeath more than 25% of the European and Chinese population were dead,changing the course of human history.

GOLDEN HORDE KHANATE

1347Baghdad

1348Meoca

Damascus1348

Spring 1347Constantinople

Sept 1347Trebizond

1345Astrakhan

Moscow

Jan 1348Ragusa

Jan 1348Venice

1346Caffa

Jan 1348Genoa

Jan 1348Marselles

June 1348Almeria

May 1348Barcelona

Sept 1347Alexandria

April 1348Tunis

Belasagun

Samarkand

Winter1346−7Tabriz

1348Cyprus

Oct 1347Messina

Spring1346Tana

1345Sarai

Figure 1.7 Tentative chronology of the initial spread of plague in the mid-fourteenthcentury. Figure taken from Reference [12].

Figure 1.8 Illustration of a plague doctor (‘‘Doctor Beak from Rome’’), engraving Rome1656). Image is public domain.


However, whether biological warfare or less spectacular hygienic reasonswere the beginning of this greatest of the medieval disasters is nearly impossibleto prove. Are we able to find simple reasons for the outbreak of the disease?

• the fleas that transmit the disease between humans leave dead bodies ratherquickly; this leads to the question of whether the corpses that flew into Caffawere flea infested;

• the rats moving in and out of the city walls – they also could spread thedisease much more efficiently;

• it is not clear if the attackers intended to spread the disease among thebesieged citizens or simply wanted to get rid of their dead comrades.

These possible reasons illustrate one of the biggest problems in biologicalwarfare history. It is extremely difficult to distinguish between an attack thatstarted the spread of infections and a coincidental natural infection in an‘‘unnaturally’’ large aggregation of or new encounters between humans [13].

1.3.3Biological Warfare Agents in the Middle Ages to World War I

During the Middle Ages, victims of the plague and decomposing bodies of humansand animals were used for biological attacks, often by throwing corpses over castlewalls by catapults. It is reported that these tactics were not only applied during thesiege of Caffa in 1346 [12] but also in the siege of Thun l’Eveque in 1340 during the100 Year’s War and during the siege of Karlstejn Castle in Bohemia in 1422. Thelast known incident of employing plague corpses for biological warfare took placein 1710. Russian forces catapulted plague-infected corpses over the city walls ofReval (today Tallinn). The Native American population was decimated after contactwith the Old World due to the introduction of many different fatal diseases. Thereis one documented case of alleged germ warfare late in the French and Indian War.The British commander Lord Jeffrey Amherst and Swiss-British officer ColonelHenry Bouquet gave smallpox-infected blankets to Indians as part during the Siegeof Fort Pitt (1873).

1.3.4From World War I to World War II – the Beginning of Scientifically Based BiologicalWeapons Research

Heinrich Hermann Robert Koch (11 December 1843 to 27 May 1910)(Figure 1.9) was a German physician. He became famous for isolating Bacillus


anthracis (1877), Tuberculosis bacillus (1882), and Vibrio cholera (1883). Koch’spostulates founded modern microbiology. He was awarded a Nobel Prizefor his tuberculosis findings in 1905. Robert Koch also inspired such majorpersons as Paul Ehrlich and Gerhard Domagk.

Figure 1.9 Heinrich Hermann Robert Koch. Image is public domain.

The breakthrough and foundation of modern microbiology by Robert Koch canbe dated to the end of the nineteenth century. It was not only a breakthrough for ourmodern health care system. Unfortunately, this date marked also the beginning ofthe use of modern science for biological warfare. During World War I, the GermanArmy developed anthrax, glanders, cholera, and a wheat fungus specifically foruse as biological weapons. They allegedly spread plague in St. Petersburg, Russia,infected mules with glanders in Mesopotamia, and attempted to do the same withthe horses of the French Cavalry. During the Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945) andWorld War II, Japanese forces operated a secret biological warfare research facility(Unit 731) in Manchuria, China [14]. They exposed more than 3000 prisoners toYersinia pestis, Bacillus anthracis, Treponema pallidum, and other agents in anattempt to develop and observe the disease. In military campaigns, the Japanesearmy applied biological weapons on Chinese soldiers and civilians. For example, in1940, Ningbo was bombed with ceramic bombs full of fleas carrying the bubonicplague. It is estimated that 400 000 Chinese died as a direct result of Japanesefield testing of biological weapons. In 1942, the United States of America formedthe War Research Service. Anthrax and botulinum toxin initially were investigated


for use as weapons. Sufficient quantities of botulinum toxin and anthrax werestockpiled by June 1944 to allow unlimited retaliation if the German forces firstapplied biological agents. The British also tested anthrax bombs on Gruinard Islandoff the northwest coast of Scotland in 1942 and 1943. Anthrax-laced cattle cakeswere prepared and stockpiled, also for retaliation.

1.3.5From the End of World War II to the 1980 – the Great Bioweapons Programs

The United States continued research on various offensive biological weaponsduring the 1950s and 1960s [13, 15]. From 1951 to 1954, harmless organisms wereset free at both coasts of the United States to demonstrate the vulnerability ofAmerican cities to biological attacks. This weakness was tested again in 1966 whena test substance was released in the New York City subway system.

During the Vietnam War, Viet Cong guerrillas used needle-sharp punji sticksdipped in feces to cause severe infections after an enemy soldier had been stabbed.In 1979, an accidental release of anthrax from a weapons facility in Sverdlovsk,USSR, killed at least 66 people. The Russian government claimed these deathswere due to infected meat, and maintained this position until 1992, when RussianPresident Boris Yeltsin finally admitted the accident [16].

1.3.6From the 1980 Up Today – the Emerging of Bioterrorism

Several countries have continued offensive biological weapons research and use[17]. Additionally, since the 1980s, terrorist organizations have become appliers ofbiological agents [18, 19]. Usually, these cases amount only to hoaxes. However,exceptions have been noted (Table 1.4) and the range of diseases caused bybiological agents and their bioterroristic potential is discussed extensively [27].


We have discussed why we still fear the use of biological agents. Deadly pandemicsand epidemics in the history of human kind have led to devastating effects in theeconomy and society. With the rise of gene- and biotechnology new scenarios for thepossible use of biological agents have plagued the world. The understanding of themechanism of action of biological agents as possible biological weapons is closelylinked to the breakthrough in science and industrial manufacturing over the last 60years. From a historical point of view it is important to mark/flag and understandthe leaps – our understanding of genetics and the possibility of designing newbiological warfare agents marks a new phase (Figure 1.10). Therefore, it is likelythat future breakthroughs in natural science, especially in gene- and biotechnology,could lead to further leaps in the development of new biological agents tailored forspecific missions.


Table 1.4 Examples of the emergence of bioterrorism.

Time Event

Autumn 1984 Followers of the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh contaminated restaurant salad barswith Salmonella in Oregon; 751 people were intentionally infected with theagent, which causes food poisoning

1985 Iraq began an offensive biological weapons program, producing anthrax,botulinum toxin, and aflatoxin. Iraq disclosed that it had bombs, Scud missiles,122-mm rockets, and artillery shells armed with the B-agents. They also hadspray tanks fitted to aircraft that could distribute agents over a specific target

1994 A Japanese sect of the Aum Shinrikyo cult attempted an aerosolized (sprayedinto the air) release of anthrax from the tops of buildings in Tokyo

1995 Two members of a Minnesota militia group were convicted of possession ofricin, which they had produced themselves for use in retaliation against localgovernment officials

2001 Anthrax was delivered by mail to US media and government offices. Therewere four deaths

2002 Six terrorist suspects were arrested in Manchester, England; their apartmentwas serving as a ‘‘ricin laboratory’’

2003 British police raided two residences around London and found traces of ricin,which led to an investigation of a possible Chechen separatist plan to attack theRussian embassy with the toxin; several arrests were made

2004 Three US Senate office buildings were closed after the toxin ricin was found inmailrooms that served the then Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s office

Use of biologicalagents or vectorswithout knowing theexact infectiousmechanism

Scientific investigation ofpotential biological agents and

their deployment

Great bioweaponsprograms

Bioterrorisms ("home-made" labs) and new

designed threats

Breakthroughs inmicrofermentation andgenetically engineered

pathogensBreakthrough in

genetics andbiotechnology

1953

Beginning ofmodern

microbiologylate 19thcentury

Level of threat

35'

1700 1800 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Year

Figure 1.10 Breakthroughs in natural science and industrial development led to importantleaps in the development and deployment of biological agents in human history.


02.11.1966Israeli nuclearweapon test

(unconfirmed)

16.10.1964First Chinese

nuclear weapontest06.08.1945

nuclear bombon Hiroshima

16.06.1945Trinity test

(US)

29.08.1949First SU/Russianuclear weapon

test

03.10.1952First UK nuclear

weapon test

18.05.1974First Indian

nuclear weapontest

28.05.1998First Pakistan

nuclear weapontest

13.02.1960First French

nuclear weapontest

20101930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

9.10.2006First North

Korean nuclearweapon test

1. Wave 2. Wave

Figure 1.11 Timeline of the nuclear age.

1.4Introduction to Radiological and Nuclear Warfare

Here we provide a brief survey of the development of radiological and nuclearwarfare, from the discovery of nuclear fission, through the development of thefirst nuclear bomb and the nuclear arms race, to today’s nuclear proliferation andthreats caused by radiological warfare devices (Figure 1.11). Our objectives are to (i)sum up key developments in nuclear warfare, (ii) provide background informationon nuclear armament (e.g., political aspects, nuclear doctrines, and operationalaspects), (iii) introduce constitutive stages of nuclear armament, (iv) analyze thehistorical tendency of nuclear warfare, and (v) explain basic ideas of radiologicalwarfare.

Before we start our tour through the history of nuclear and radiological war-fare we need to set the terminology employed by defining often used basicterms:

• Nuclear warfare: a military conflict or political strategy in which nuclearweapons are used.

• Nuclear weapon: An explosive device that derives its destructive force fromnuclear reactions, either fission or a combination of fission and fusion.Nuclear weapons are considered weapons of mass destruction, and their

1.4 Introduction to Radiological and Nuclear Warfare 23

use and control has been a major aspect of international policy since theirdebut.

• Thermonuclear weapon: A nuclear weapon that derives its energy from thefusion of hydrogen. Also known as a hydrogen weapon.

• Radiological warfare: any form of warfare involving deliberate radiationpoisoning, without relying on nuclear fission or nuclear fusion.

• Radiological weapon: any weapon that is designed to spread radioactivematerial with the intent to kill and cause disruption upon an area(e.g., city).

• Nuclear fission: A nuclear reaction in which the nucleus of an atom splitsinto smaller parts, often producing free neutrons and lighter nuclei, whichmay eventually produce photons (in the form of gamma rays). Fission ofheavy elements is an exothermic reaction that can release large amountsof energy both as electromagnetic radiation and as kinetic energy of thefragments

• Nuclear fusion: The process by which multiple like-charged atomic nucleijoin together to form a heavier nucleus. It is accompanied by the release orabsorption of energy, which allows matter to enter a plasma state. The fusionof two nuclei with lower mass than iron generally releases energy, while thefusion of nuclei heavier than iron absorbs energy.

1.4.1Discovery of Nuclear Fission

The history of nuclear weapons started with the discovery of its fundamentalphysical mechanisms, nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. In the first three decadesof the twentieth century fundamental developments in our understanding of thenature of atoms, including radioactivity, revolutionized physics. In 1932 JohnCockcroft and Ernest Walton ‘‘split the atom’’ for the first time by bombardinglithium with protons. In 1934 Enrico Fermi and his colleagues in Rome studiedthe results of bombarding uranium with neutrons. Inspired by Fermi’s resultsLise Meitner, Otto Hahn, and Fritz Strassmann performed similar experimentsin Germany. In December 1938 Hahn and Strassmann submitted a manuscriptto Naturwissenschaften reporting that they detected the element barium after bom-barding uranium with neutrons. Lise Meitner and Otto Robert Frisch correctlyinterpreted these results as being nuclear fission [20].

The news on nuclear fission was spread further during the Fifth WashingtonConference on Theoretical Physics in January 1939, which fostered many moreexperimental demonstrations. Frederic Joliot-Curie’s team in Paris discovered thatsecondary neutrons are released during uranium fission, thus making a nuclearchain-reaction feasible. With the news of fission neutrons, Leo Szilard immediately


understood the possibility of a nuclear chain reaction using uranium. In thesummer of 1939, Fermi and Szilard proposed the idea of a nuclear reactor (pile) tomediate this process. The pile would use natural uranium as fuel, and graphite asthe moderator of neutron energy. At that time scientists in America as well as inEurope were well aware of the potential of utilizing nuclear fission as a powerfulweapon, but no one was quite sure how it could be done.

Leo Szilard (11 February 1898 to 30 May 1964) was a Hungarian physicistwho conceived the nuclear chain reaction and worked on the ManhattanProject. During 1936, he assigned the chain-reaction patent to the BritishAdmiralty to ensure its secrecy (GB patent 630726). Szilard was also theco-holder, with Enrico Fermi, of the patent on the nuclear reactor (US Patent2,708,656).

Hans Albrecht Bethe (2 July 1906 to 6 March 2005) was a German–Americanphysicist, and Nobel laureate in physics for his work on the theory of stellarnucleosynthesis. He was head of the Theoretical Division at the secret LosAlamos laboratory developing the first atomic bombs. There he played a keyrole in calculating the critical mass of the weapons, and carried out theoreticalwork on the implosion method. Along with Richard Feynman, he developed aformula for calculating the explosive yield of the bomb. During the early 1950s,Bethe also played an important role in the development of the larger hydrogenbomb.

J. Robert Oppenheimer (22 April 1904 to 18 February 1967) was an Americantheoretical physicist and professor of physics at the University of California,Berkeley. He is best known for his role as the scientific director of theManhattan Project, the World War II effort to develop the first nuclearweapons at the secret Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. Afterthe war Oppenheimer was a chief advisor to the newly created United StatesAtomic Energy Commission and used that position to lobby for internationalcontrol of nuclear power and to avert the nuclear arms race with the SovietUnion.

At the Cavendish Laboratory, at the University of Cambridge, Mark Oliphantobserved the fusion of hydrogen isotopes for the first time in 1932. In 1939 HansBethe theorized about nuclear fusion and worked out the main cycle of nuclearfusion in stars. Bethe suggested that much of the energy output of the Sun andother stars results from reactions in which four hydrogen nuclei unite to form onehelium nucleus while releasing a large amount of energy.

Later research proved that fusion reactions can indeed occur, but only atmany millions of degrees kelvin when the electrostatic forces of repulsion thatresult from the presence of positive electric charges in both nuclei can be over-come so that the nuclear forces of attraction can perform a fusion. Such high


temperatures, however, only occur in stars or in uncontrolled nuclear chainreactions.

1.4.2Manhattan Project – Development of the First Fission Weapons

Up to the beginning of World War II many key discoveries in nuclear physicsand nuclear chemistry were made by German scientists. Owing to this fact,there was concern among scientists in the Allied nations that Germany mighthave a project to develop fission-based weapons. In March 1940 Otto Frischand Rudolf Peierls, two exiled German scientists living in Britain, reported intheir famous Frisch–Peierls memorandum that if uranium-235 is completelyseparated from uranium-238 there is no need to slow the neutrons down, so nomoderator was required. Consequently, in Great Britain a top-secret committee ofexperts (later known as the MAUD [1] Committee) was formed to investigate thefeasibility of an atomic bomb. The MAUD report led to the ‘‘Tube Alloys Project,’’the first organized research on nuclear weapons. The ‘‘Tube Alloys Project’’remained as the leading nuclear project until the start of the ‘‘Manhattan Project’’in 1942.

The USA had started investigations into nuclear weapons with the UraniumCommittee in 1939. Owing to MAUD reports and first results of the ‘‘Tube AlloysProject,’’ which indicated that a fission weapon could be accomplished within afew years, in 1942 the USA reorganized its nuclear research under the control ofthe US Army as the ‘‘Manhattan Project’’ (Figure 1.12). In August 1943 Winston

Richland

Berkeley

(Hanford Engineer Works)

(Radiation Laboratory)

(Project Camel)

(Project Alberta)(Project Ames)

(Metallurgical Laboratory)

(Project Trinity)

(Manhattan District Headquarters,Clinton Engineering Works)

(U.S. Vanadium Corp.)

(Los Alamos Laboratory−Project Y)

(Vanadium Corp.)

Inyokern

Monticello

Wendover

Uravan

Los Alamos

Alamogordo

Oak Ridge

Sylacauga

Chicago

Washington, D.C.

Ames

Rochester(Health Project)

Figure 1.12 Major research sites of the Manhattan Project.


Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt agreed on cooperation on nuclear researchby signing the Quebec Agreement. The United Kingdom handed over all of itsmaterial to the United States and, in return, received all the copies of the Americanprogress reports to the president. The British atomic research was subsumed theninto the ‘‘Manhattan Project’’ until after the war, and a large team of British andCanadian scientists moved to the United States.

The Manhattan Project encompassed research activities at over 30 sites acrossthe United States (Figure 1.12), Canada, and the United Kingdom. The threeprimary research and production sites of the project were the plutonium-productionfacility at what is now the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Hanford (WA), theuranium-enrichment facilities at Oak Ridge (TN), and the weapons research anddesign laboratory now known as Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos(NM). The Manhattan Project resolved its first key scientific hurdle on 2 December1942, when a team at the University of Chicago was able to initiate the first artificialself-sustaining nuclear chain reaction. Using these designs, massive reactors wassecretly created at the Hanford Site to transform uranium 238 (238U) into plutonium239 (239Pu). Plutonium-239 is a relatively stable element that does not exist in natureand is also fissible.

Another key scientific hurdle for the Manhattan Project was the production andpurification of 235U. Some 99.3% of natural uranium is 238U, which cannot beused for a fission weapon as it absorbs neutrons and does not split. Two methodswere developed to overcome this problem, electromagnetic separation and gaseousdiffusion. Both methods separate isotopes based on their different weights. Forthe large-scale production and purification another secret site was erected at Oakridge (TN).

The highly purified 235U was used to build a gun-type fission weapon, called‘‘Little Boy.’’ The gun-type design consists of a mass of 235U, which is fired downa gun barrel like tube into another mass of 235U. In the moment of the impactboth mass rapidly create the critical mass of 235U, resulting in a nuclear explosion.Even though the fundamental assumptions were verified in extensive laboratorywork, no system level test was carried out as the design was so certain to work.In addition, the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima used all the existinghighly purified 235U, and so there was no 235U available for such a system leveltest.

Trinity was the first test of technology for a nuclear weapon (Figure 1.13).It was conducted by the United States on 16 July 1945, on the White SandsProving Ground. Trinity was a test of an implosion-design plutonium device.The Trinity detonation was equivalent to the explosion of around 20 kt ofTNT (trinitrotoluene) and is usually considered the beginning of the NuclearAge.


Figure 1.13 Trinity explosion 0.016 s after detonation. The fireball is about 200 m wide.Image is public domain.

In 1943–1944, work with regard to a plutonium-based bomb focused on agun-type design called ‘‘Thin Man.’’ In April 1944 the research laboratory at LosAlamos received the first sample of Hanford-produced plutonium. Within twoweeks, the research team discovered a problem: reactor-bred plutonium was farless isotopically pure than cyclotron-produced plutonium, which made the Hanfordplutonium unsuitable for use in a gun-type weapon.

This problem was solved by changing to the idea of ‘‘implosion,’’ an alternativedetonation scheme that had existed for some time at Los Alamos. The implosiondesign employed chemical explosives to squeeze a sub-critical sphere of fissilematerial into a smaller and denser form. When the fissile atoms were packed closertogether, the rate of neutron capture would increase, and the mass would becomea critical mass. The metal needed to travel only very short distances, so the criticalmass would be assembled in much less time than it would take to assemble amass by a bullet impacting a target. Because of the complexity of an implosion-typeweapon, it was decided that, despite the waste of fissile material, an initial testwould be required. The first nuclear test took place on 16 July 1945 on White SandsProving Ground under the code name ‘‘Trinity’’ (Figure 1.13).

Use of nuclear weapon: In the history of warfare, only two nuclear weaponshave been detonated as part of military operations. The first was a uraniumgun-type device code-named ‘‘Little Boy,’’ which was dropped by the UnitedStates on the Japanese city of Hiroshima on the morning of 6 August 1945(Figure 1.14). The second was detonated three days later when the UnitedStates dropped a plutonium implosion-type device code-named ‘‘Fat Man’’ onthe city of Nagasaki, Japan.


HIROSHIMAEXTENT OF FIRE

ANDLIMITS OF BLAST DAMAGE

Figure 1.14 Impact of ‘‘Little Boy.’’ Image is public domain.

On 10–11 May 1945 the Target Committee at Los Alamos recommended Kyoto,

Hiroshima, Yokohama, and the arsenal at Kokura as possible targets. On 6 August

1945, a uranium-based weapon, ‘‘Little Boy,’’ was dropped on the Japanese city

of Hiroshima (Figure 1.14). Three days later, a plutonium-based weapon, ‘‘Fat

Man,’’ was dropped onto the city of Nagasaki. At least 100 000 Japanese were

killed immediately by the heat, radiation, and blast effects of the nuclear weapons.

President Truman’s statement that the USA would continue with extensive use of

nuclear weapons if Japan did not surrender immediately was in fact a bluff, as the

USA had only one remaining completed uranium-gun type bomb.

On 1 January 1947 the Manhattan Program was turned over to the United

States Atomic Energy Commission by the Atomic Energy Act of 1946. The Atomic

Energy Act broke the partnership of the USA with the United Kingdom and

Canada, which has been formed for the Manhattan program, and prevented the

passage of any further information regarding nuclear weapons to them. It also

ruled that nuclear weapon development and nuclear power management would

be under civilian control.


1.4.3Nuclear Arms Race

The Soviet Union was not invited join the Manhattan Program partnership andto share in the newly developed nuclear weapons. During World War II, however,several volunteer spies involved with the Manhattan Project passed information tothe Soviet Union, and the Soviet nuclear physicist Igor Kurchatov, the appointeddirector of the Soviet nuclear program, was carefully watching the Allied weaponsdevelopment. In the years immediately after World War II, the Soviets put theirfull industrial and manpower capabilities into the development of their own atomicweapons. The initial problem for the Soviets was primarily one of resources – theyhad not scouted out uranium resources in the Soviet Union and the USA had madedeals to monopolize the largest known reserves in the Belgian Congo. In the earlyyears mines in East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, and Poland were used assources of uranium for the Soviet nuclear program.

Efforts in the nuclear program brought results, when the Soviet Union testedits first fission weapon on 29 August 1949 – years ahead of US predictions. Thenews of the first Soviet nuclear bomb was announced to the world first by theUnited States, which had detected the nuclear fallout it generated from its testsite in Kazakhstan. The USA was shocked not only by the fast progress of theSoviet nuclear program but also by the fact that they had lost their monopoly onnuclear armament. Now both nations (USA and Soviet Union) faced a nucleartit-for-tat situation. As a consequence, both started a competition for supremacy innuclear armament, in which both built up a massive arsenal of nuclear weapons(Figure 1.15).

By the 1950s both the United States and Soviet Union had the power to obliteratethe other side. Both sides developed a ‘‘second-strike’’ capability, that is, they couldlaunch a devastating attack even after sustaining a full assault from the otherside. This policy was part of what became known as Mutually Assured Destruction(MAD): both sides knew that any attack upon the other would be suicidal, and thuswould refrain from attack.

1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 20050123456789

10

US

US SU/ Russia

SU/ Russia UK

UKFrance France

China

China

Israel

Israel

India

Pakistan

North Korea

Nuclear-weapon states

Thermonuclear-weapon states

Figure 1.15 Timeline of states with a nuclear arsenal.


The third nation that developed nuclear weapon was the United Kingdom. TheUS Atomic Energy Act of 1946 prevented the passage of nuclear related informationto the United Kingdom. Owing to its involvement in the Manhattan Program theUK had knowledge in some areas. The British nuclear program developed amodified version of the ‘‘Fat Man’’ plutonium based implosion type bomb. TheBritish nuclear bomb was successfully tested in Operation Hurricane in Australiaon 3 October 1952 (Table 1.5).

During the 1950s all three nuclear nations (USA, Soviet Union, and UK)worked on improving their weapon design as well as the development of themore powerful thermonuclear weapons or so-called ‘‘hydrogen bombs.’’ Finally,the initial Anglo-American cooperation on nuclear weapons was restored by the1958 US-UK Mutual Defense Agreement. As a result of this and the Polaris SalesAgreement, the United Kingdom has bought United States designs for submarinemissiles and fitted its own warheads. This first wave of nuclear armament wascharacterized by competition between the two post World War II superpowers(USA and Soviet Union). The UK participated in this first wave as a spin-off of theManhattan Project and due to its relationship with the USA.

The nature of this first nuclear wave, with the establishment of superpowernations, told other nations that building nuclear weapons, particular hydrogenbombs, is a form of increasing national self-expression. As a result several nationsinitiated their own nuclear programs and started a second wave of nuclear arma-ment (Figure 1.15). In the 1950s the French Republic started a civil nuclear researchprogram, which gained plutonium as a by-product. In 1965 a secret Committeefor Military applications of Atomic Energy was formed. Under the presidency ofCharles de Gaulle the final decision to build a nuclear bomb was taken in 1958. A

Table 1.5 Usage of nuclear weapons and first nuclear tests by known nuclear countries.

Country Date of firstnuclear weapontest

Date of first hydrogenweapon test

Date of usage of nuclearweapon

USA 16 July 1945Trinity, first evernuclear explosion

1 November 1952 6 August 1945 ‘‘LittleBoy’’ on Hiroshima; firstusage of nuclear weapon9 August 1945 ‘‘FatMan’’ on Nagasaki

Soviet Union/Russia 29 August 1949 22 November 1955 –UK 3 October 1952 15 May 1957 –France 13 February 1960 28 August 1968 –China 16 October 1964 17 June 1967 –India 18 May 1974 – –Pakistan 28 May 1998 – –North Korea 9 October 2006 – –


successful test of a French nuclear bomb took place on 13 February 1960 and thenon 28 August 1968 a hydrogen weapon was tested. Since then France has improvedand maintained its own nuclear capability. China followed a path that is in someways similar to the French nuclear program. In 1953 China started nuclear researchunder the umbrella of producing civilian nuclear energy. The Chinese programmade rapid progress and, consequently, the first nuclear weapon was tested on 16October 1964, followed by a hydrogen bomb on 17 June 1967 (Table 1.5).

Owing to intelligence reports Israel joined the group of nuclear weapon nationsin 1966 and built thermonuclear weapons in the 1980s. Israel has never officiallyconfirmed or denied that it possesses nuclear weapons, even though the existenceof their Dimona nuclear facility was confirmed by the dissident Mordechai Vanunuin 1986. In addition, Israel never performed a full system test, which wouldhave been detected by other nations. The last nation in the second wave ofnuclear armament is India. It conducted an underground nuclear test, at Pokharanin the Rajasthan desert, code named the ‘‘Smiling Buddha.’’ The governmentclaims it was a peaceful test but it is in fact part of an accelerated weaponsprogram.

The third wave of nuclear armament started at the end of the cold war and ischaracterized by the proliferation of nuclear weapons among lesser powers andfor reasons other than the rivalry between the superpowers USA and the SovietUnion. Owing to competition between India and Pakistan and the success of theIndian nuclear program Pakistan started its own nuclear program. On 28 May1998, after a series of nuclear tests in India, Pakistan joined the group of nuclearnations with an underground test of fission devices. The intense nuclear testing ofnuclear weapons gave rise to concerns that they would use such weapons on eachother.

In 2003 North Korea announced that it had performed several nuclear tests butthey were never officially confirmed by experts. The first confirmed detonation ofa nuclear weapon by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea took place on 9October 2006.

Tsar Bomba – the Largest Nuclear Detonation

On 30 October 1961 the Soviet Union tested the AN602 hydrogen bomb(nicknamed Tsar Bomba). The Tsar Bomba is the largest, most powerfulnuclear weapon ever detonated, and currently the most powerful explosiveever created by humanity. The original US estimate of the yield was 57 Mt,but since 1991 all Russian sources have stated its yield as 50 Mt. The fireballwas 8 km in diameter, touched the ground, and reached nearly as high as thealtitude of the release plane. The heat from the explosion could have causedthird degree burns 100 km away from ground zero. The subsequent mushroomcloud was about 64 km high and 40 km wide. The explosion could be seen andfelt almost 1000 km from ground zero in Finland, breaking windows there andin Sweden. Atmospheric focusing caused blast damage up to 1000 km away.


The seismic shock created by the detonation was measurable even on its thirdpassage around the Earth. Its Richter magnitude was about 5–5.25. The energyyield was around 7.1 on the Richter scale, but since the bomb was detonatedin the air, rather than underground, most of the energy was not converted intoseismic waves.

The dates of the first successful nuclear weapon test or the first test of a hydrogenweapon provides us with only one aspect of the nuclear arms race. Other aspectsare the reasons for the nuclear weapon programs. As discussed above, the USManhattan Program was established to investigate the general development of anew weapon technology and to obtain the nuclear weapon before Nazi Germany inWorld War II. The Soviet Union started their nuclear program to keep up with theother major post-World War II power, the USA. Great Britain and France have beenpowerful counties in Europe for centuries. Consequently, they saw a possibility tomaintain this status post-World War II by building up nuclear capabilities. China’sreasons were similar, as China wanted to rebuild its status as a ruling nation in Asia.In addition, those programs were part of the rising rivalry between the so-calledwestern (USA) and communist or eastern (Soviet Union) blocks. The Treaty onthe Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT, nonproliferation treaty) of 1968acknowledged the USA, Soviet Union, Great Britain, France, and China officially asnuclear states. The NPT tried to conserve this status as the five official nuclear statesagreed not to transfer explosive devices or knowledge of their construction and theremaining member-states agreed not to acquire nuclear weapons. As evidence theofficial nuclear states are also permanent members of the United Nations SecurityCouncil (UNSC).

From this situation, less powerful nations draw the conclusion that the ownershipof nuclear weapons makes a country more accepted and respected. As a consequencethey saw nuclear armament as way of increasing the national self-expression. Israelstarted its nuclear weapon program to obtain a powerful option in the wars andcompetition with its Arab neighbors. At a time when nations with an industrycapable of building and operating nuclear power plants gave up any plans fornuclear armament India and Pakistan continued their nuclear program. SincePakistan has separated from India both nations compete with each other. Severaltimes, disputes have come close to ending in war. Both nations believed that anuclear arsenal would give them more independence from neighboring nationsand more influence among ‘‘important nations.’’ The last examples of such nuclearprograms are North Korea, Iraq, and Iran. Iraq had to stop its nuclear programafter the war with Kuwait. In 2008 North Korea demonstrated the status oftheir nuclear program by a nuclear test explosion. Officially, Iran declares thatits nuclear program is a civil power generation program. However, there areconcerns that Iran will build up a nuclear arsenal to counter Israel and to warnthe USA.

A third aspect in analyzing the history of nuclear armament is the size of nuclearstockpiles (Figure 1.16). If we compare nuclear stockpiles we see that at each


100 000

90 000

80 000

70 000

60 000

50 000

40 000

30 000

20 000

10 000

0

Nuclear stockpiles (NPT Nuclear weapon states, US, Russia)

US

SU/Russia

NPT Nuclear Weapon States

Num

ber

of n

ucle

ar w

arhe

ads

1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975

Year

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

(a)

Nuclear stockpiles (NPT Nuclear weapon states)

Num

ber

of n

ucle

ar w

arhe

ads

1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975

Year

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 20050

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000GB

France

China

Israel

(b)

Figure 1.16 Nuclear stockpiles of nuclear weapon states: (a) nuclear stockpiles of USA andSoviet Union/Russia; (b) nuclear stockpiles of other nuclear states.

point in history more than 95% of nuclear warheads worldwide were owned bythe USA and Soviet Union/Russia. During the first decade of the nuclear age theUSA built up to 30 000 nuclear warheads. Since then the USA has improved itsnuclear capability by modernization and has continuously decreased the numberof warheads. Owing to problems accessing uranium, the Soviet Union needed twodecades to reach the USA stockpile. The Soviet program continued for anotherdecade to build more nuclear warheads. In 1986, the USA and Soviet Union


owned more warheads than are needed to destroy the Earth several times over.This nuclear arsenal encompassed a mix of strategic as well as medium- andshort-range tactical weapons. Owing to bilateral treaties on the reduction of nucleararms both nations removed tactical nuclear weapons and reduced the number ofwarheads to approximately 10 000 each (9400 USA and 13 000 Russia) in 2009. Thedevelopment of the nuclear stockpile of all other nuclear nations (Figure 1.16b)shows a different tendency. These nations processed a certain number of warheadswithin a decade and have maintained this number since then. Owing to the smallnumber of warheads (less than 400) it is widely assumed that these arsenals consistof strategic warheads only.

If we compare the Manhattan Program with all other successful nuclear programswe see that the major logistical and technical challenges of nuclear weaponprograms are:

• access to sources of uranium,• production and purification of 235U/239Pu,• weapon design.

As most parts of the first two challenges also occur in programs that developnuclear power systems, any kind of nuclear program carries the danger of providingkey knowledge towards a nuclear weapon program.

What is known as the nuclear arms race shows us that there are three constitutivestages of nuclear weapons (Figure 1.17 and Table 1.5):

• development (and testing) of a fission weapon,• development (and testing) of fusion (thermonuclear) weapon,• usage of nuclear weapon (only the USA has reached this stage).

40.28%

55.71%

4.01%

1.03% 0.34%

0.26%

0.26%

0.04%

0.79%

1.29%

GB

GB

France

France

US

US

SU/Russia

SU/Russia China Isreal

China

Pakistan India North Korea

Figure 1.17 Nuclear stockpiles in 2009 [21].


1.4.4Status of World Nuclear Forces

In each country, the exact number of nuclear assets as well as the current status is aclosely held national secret. Despite this limitation, publicly available informationand occasional leaks make it possible to estimate the size of the nuclear weaponstockpile (Table 1.6). Those estimates are regularly reported in the Nuclear Notebookin the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists [21] and the nuclear appendix in the SIPRIYearbook [22]. In 2009, approximately two decades after the cold war ended, theStockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) reported that the world’scombined stockpile of nuclear warheads remained at the high level of morethan 23 300. SIPRI considered more than 8190 warheads operational, of whichapproximately 2200 US and Russian warheads are on high alert, for example, readyfor use on short notice.

Owing to the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) policy approximately 96% ofall nuclear warheads belong to the nuclear arsenal of Russia (55.71%) and the USA(40.28%). All other nuclear nations add up to only 4% (Figure 1.17).

In the current political situation most nations, including Russia and USA, wantto avoid any kind of nuclear war. As a consequence even a country that owns alimited number of warheads (like North Korea, with less than ten warheads) posesa significant nuclear threat.

1.4.5Radiological Warfare and Nuclear Terrorism

In addition to the military use of nuclear weapons, experts have been discussingthe possibility that non-state terrorist groups could employ nuclear devices sincethe 1970s. In 1975 The Economist warned that a nuclear bomb can be built out of afew kilograms of plutonium [23]. Since by the mid-1980s power stations turned out

Table 1.6 Status of world nuclear forcesa [21].

Country Total nuclear inventory

Russia 13 000United States 9400France 300China 240United Kingdom 185Israel 80Pakistan 60India 60North Korea <10

aAll numbers are estimates.


many tons of plutonium that each year was transferred from one plant to another,as it proceeded through the fuel cycle, the dangers of robbery in transit becameevident. In fact, though, there was a perception in Washington that the value ofwhat is called ‘‘special nuclear material’’ – plutonium or highly enriched uranium –was so enormous that strict financial accountability of the private contractors whodealt with it would be enough to protect it from falling into the wrong hands. Butit has since been revealed that the physical safeguarding of bomb-grade materialagainst theft was almost scandalously neglected. The public focus on this issuechanged after an NBC aired Special Bulletin, a television dramatization of a nuclearterrorist attack on the United States. As a result of the public discussion in 1986 aprivate panel of experts known as the International Task Force on the Prevention ofTerrorism released a report urging all nuclear-armed states to beware the dangersof terrorism. The experts warned that the probability of nuclear terrorism isincreasing and the consequences for urban and industrial societies could becatastrophic.

A report published in 2004 by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacksupon the United States showed how real the threat of nuclear terrorism becameover the years [24]. In the report the Commission released information on anunsuccessful attempt by al-Qaeda to purchase uranium in 1994 and that al-Qaedacontinues to pursue its strategic objective of obtaining a nuclear weapon. A May2004 report [25] by Harvard University’s Project on Managing the Atom foundthat a nuclear attack ‘‘would be among the most difficult types of attacks forterrorists to accomplish,’’ but that with the necessary fissile materials, ‘‘a capableand well-organized terrorist group plausibly could make, deliver, and detonate atleast a crude nuclear bomb capable of incinerating the heart of any major city inthe world.’’

Nuclear terrorism employs nuclear weapons, which release energy in a hugenuclear explosion. As we have learned through the review of the history of nuclearwarfare the design of such nuclear weapons belongs to a highly sophisticated levelof engineering science.

In contrast a terrorist may use a radiological dispersal device (RDD) that simplyscatters radioactive material. Evidently, the design of such a RDD is much easierthan building a nuclear weapon. The main physical effect of radiological dispersalis the contamination of an area. Warfare involving deliberate radiation poisoning,without relying on nuclear fission or nuclear fusion, is summarized under theterm radiological warfare. Consequently, any criminal and terrorist action usingradiological dispersal can be called radiological terrorism. The fear of radiologicalterrorism arose in conjunction with the increasing use of radioactive isotopesin civil applications. For example, cesium-137, which is used in external beamradiation devices to treat cancers and equipment to monitor wells for oil, andcobalt-60, which is used in industrial radiography and cancer therapy, might beused as dispersal radioactive material.

The aftermath of several radiological accidents, such as those in Mexico City(1962), Algeria (1978), Morocco (1983), Ciudad Juarez in Mexico (1983), and Goianiain Brazil (1987) demonstrate the endangerment caused by disposed radioactive

References 37

material. The accident in Goiania was one of the most serious radiological accidents.On 13 September 1987, a shielded, strongly radioactive cesium-137 source wasremoved from its protective housing in a teletherapy machine in an abandonedclinic in Goiania, Brazil, and subsequently ruptured. Consequently, 93 g of theradioactive cesium chloride salt was dispersed and many people incurred largedoses of radiation, due to both external and internal exposure. Four of thecasualties ultimately died and 28 people suffered radiation burns. Residences andpublic places were contaminated. Decontamination necessitated the demolitionof seven residences and various other buildings, and the removal of the topsoilfrom large areas. In total about 3500 m3 of radioactive waste were generated [26].Nowadays the media often refer to RDD by the term ‘‘dirty bomb.’’ This termfocuses on a device in which powdered radioisotope surrounds chemical explosive.In fact many terrorist groups probably have the skill and materials to make theexplosive part of the device; but it would be somewhat harder for them to obtainthe radioactive material and convert it into powdered form. However, we shouldbear in mind that terrorists could also scatter radioactive material without anexplosive.


In this subsection we have learned that for the first time in our history we are ableto eradicate ourselves. The unleashing of the nuclear power led to catastrophicconsequences in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. During the cold war the nuclear armsrace between United States and Soviet Union led to each having the power toobliterate the other side. Both sides had a ‘‘second-strike’’ capability, that is, theycould launch a devastating attack even after sustaining a full assault from the otherside.

Nowadays several other states are trying to enter the exclusive club of nationswith nuclear weapons. Furthermore, the danger of nuclear terrorism cannot bedenied. The combination of explosive devices with radiological material (‘‘dirtybomb’’) may not have such apocalyptic consequences as the use of a nuclear bomb,but it could make large areas uninhabitable.

References

1. Mayor, A. (2003) Greek Fire, PoisonArrows and Scorpion Bombs: Biologicaland Chemical Warfare in the AncientWorld, Overlook Duckworth. ISBN:1585677348X.

2. Smart, J.K. (1997) in Textbook ofMilitary Medicine: MedicalAspects of Chemical und Biological War-fare (eds R Zajtchuk and R.F. Bellamy),Office of the Surgeon General, US

Department of the Army, Washington,DC, pp. 9–86.

3. James, S. (2005) Carnuntum Jahrb.,189–206.

4. Martinetz, D. (1996) Der Gaskrieg 1914– 1918 – Entwicklung, Herstellung undEinsatz Chemischer Kampfstoffe, Bernard& Graefe. ISBN: 978-3-7637-5952-1.

5. Trumpener, U. (1975) J. Modern History,47, 460–480.


6. Harris, R. and Paxman, J. (1982) AHigher Form of Killing. The Secret Storyof Gas and Germ Warfare, Chatto &Windus, London. ISBN-10: 0701125833.

7. Barker, A.J. (1968) The Civilizing Mis-sion: A History of The Italo-Ethiopian Warof 1935–1936, Dial Press, New York, pp.241–244.

8. Deng, H. and Evans, P.M. (1997) Non-proliferation Rev., Spring-Summer, 4,101–108.

9. Infield, G. (1988) Disaster at Bari,Bantam Books, New York, pp. 209,230–231.

10. Shoham, D. (1998) Nonproliferation Rev.,Spring-Summer, 5, 48–58.

11. Oldstone, M.A. (209) Viruses, Plaguesand History: Past, Present, and Future,Oxford University Press, Oxford. ISBN:0195327314.

12. Wheelis, M. (2002) Emerg. Infect. Dis.,8 [serial online] September. Available athttp://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol8no9/01-0536.htm (accessed 12 January 2011).

13. Frischknecht, F. (2003) EMBO Rep., S4,47–52.

14. Harris, S. (1992) Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci.,666, 21–52.

15. Regis, E. (1999) The Biology of Doom– The History of America’s Secret GermWarfare Project, Henry Holt, New York.ISBN: 978-0805057652.

16. Meselson, M., Guillemin, J.,Hugh-Jones, M., Langmuir, A., Popova,I., Shelokov, A., and Yampolskaya, O.(1994) Science, 266, 1202–1208.

17. Guillemin, J. (2005) Biological Weapons:From the Invention of State-Sponsored

Programs to Contemporary Bioterrorism,Columbia University Press, New York.ISBN: 978-0231129428.

18. Atlas, R.A. (2001) Crit. Rev. Microbiol.,27, 355–379.

19. Leitenberg, M. (2001) Crit. Rev. Micro-biol., 27, 267–320.

20. Meitner, L. and Frisch, O.R. (1929)Nature, 143 (3615), 239–240.

21. Norris, R.S. and Kristensen, H.M. (2009)Bull. At. Sci., 65 (6), 86–98.

22. Gill, B., Cohen, R., Deng, F.M. et al.(2009) SIPRI Yearbook: Armaments, Dis-armament and International Security,International Peace Research Institute,Stockholm. ISBN: 978-0-19-956606-8.

23. Smyth, H.D.W. (1945) Atomic Energyfor Military Purposes: The Official Re-port on the Development of the AtomicBomb Under the Auspices of the UnitedStates Government, Maple Press, York,PA. http://www.archive.org/details/atomicenergyform00smytrich (accessed20 January 2011).

24. U.S. National Commission on TerroristAttacks upon the United States (2004)Overview of the enemy, Staff StatementNo. 15, June 2004.

25. Bunn, M. and Wier, A. (2004) Secur-ing the Bomb: An Agenda for Action,Project on Managing the Atom, HarvardUniversity, 109 pp.

26. International Atomic Energy Agency(1988) The Radiological Accident inGoiania, IAEA, Vienna.

27. Khardori, N. (2006) Bioterrorism Pre-paredness, WILEY-VCH, Weinheim.ISBN: 3-527-31235-8.

1 A Glance Back – Myths and Facts about CBRN Incidents · incidents with chemicals by historical...

Documents

Transcript of 1 A Glance Back – Myths and Facts about CBRN Incidents · incidents with chemicals by historical...